Excepting a Malthusian catastrophe or a revolutionary technological breakthrough on the order of scalable nuclear fusion or accessible health- and intelligence-enhancing genetic engineering, that magnitude of fertility depression should be viewed skeptically, to put it mildly.

Finally, from the agreement:

Parties should, when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and
consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to health, the rights
of indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with
disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as
well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity.

19 comments:

Feeding starving negroes just makes a larger population of starving negroes. I suppose that's why they are the biological weapon of choice for the nWo. An inferior race of stupid stone age savages that cannot feed or care for itself could be used like Xenomorphs. Dropped onto an unsuspecting community or nation and population bombing the natives into extinction through rapine and pushing out of living space. After which the food could be stopped and medicines withheld and Voila, empty living space full of corpses. That could be the real reason for "Civil Rights" and guilt for colonialism or some other vile crap. Sounds a little far fetched, but "White Flight" and Civil Rights put together looks like a Bioterror Plan, not any sane social policy with unexpected results. How unexpected are results after half a Century?

Are you implying an increased anthropogenic carbon emission from a growing population? If so, it makes more sense to show growth by total population, not by percent change.

Also, the regional breakdown should consider per capita carbon emissions, which certainly varies from continent to continent (Africa being the lowest per capita). From an emissions and pop growth perspective, Asia seems to be far more a concern. Though, as Africa develops, their per capita emissions will grow.

If your point is more generally about overpopulation and consequent environmental pressures, that's been a discussion on the left since The Population Bomb in the late 1960's, though not always a popular one.

Change being, in this context, largely a function of total population growth. Africa is going to add over 3 billion more people to the planet in less than a century. If putatively concerned about climate change while refusing to address that, specifically, it's hard to take seriously.

The Lost Gen. (late 1800's born) produced a number of leaders whose reach extends far beyond the grave. Interest in eugenics exploded when they were young (nomad generations are always hated and feared). Growing up in a time of squalor, violence, and cynicism, as they hit middle age they intensified public health/order regimens that older generations had started. Moreso in the East, commies took command of everything and pursued the goal of a society that (in theory) prevented decadent greedy excess. In the more individualistic West, interest in strategic breeding to eliminate "bad" stuff from the gene pool grew, while more prosaic reforms were also enacted (taking down robber barons, cracking down on immigration, growing public disgust at sweatshops and rickety tenements, etc.). Hitler overwhelmingly sided with the Western flavor of reform, as much of Nazi ideology was inspired by eugenics theories developed in Sweden and America, among other Western countries.

What was the turning point? Hitler (and his fellow fascists) got carried away, to put it mildly. As knowledge of Nazi atrocities grew, non-fascist Western countries began to bury their association with scientific "racism". We allied ourselves with the seemingly benign Soviets for strategic purposes. And thus began the still extant neurosis about downplaying horrific Leftist excesses while endlessly beating "ourselves" (e.g., the West) up over ever having had any resemblance to fascist culture. Since commie excess never really happened in America, or England, or whatever, we don't have a visceral sense of shame about it.

But just how did we get to a point of constant self-hatred about a dreadfully racist past? Prosperity. And it affected every living generation. To the eventual detriment of all, but moreso younger generations. In the 1960's, prominent elders/leaders drawn from numerous generations (Losts, G.I.s, Silents, Boomers) began to aggressively promote the notion that the prosperity of the late 40's-early 70's was not something they earned or deserved. Rather, it came at the expense of various put-upon groups (men took from women, whites took from other races, etc.) This transmogrified into the notion that ALL forms of privilege/good fortune at all times were shamefully stolen from others.

So the combo of older generations producing ugly crap, younger generations hearing about how horrible those things were, and people experiences a great deal of success/comfort, makes it possible for an ideology to be embraced by 4-5 generations who strive to etch their fantasies into Western culture. Boomers literally have no personal/emotional memory of pre-1946 difficulties, so they really gobbled up utopian nonsense (what seperated Boomers from older generations wasn't so much substance as style; older generations were more hesitant to fling themselves into radical change even if in principle they agreed with Boomers that we as a society had to make amends for a horrible past).

Most Boomers tend to have a quite negative view of the past, focusing on the atrocities and excesses of past periods. The exception being, of course, the post 50's decades on which they got to imprint. Even then, there's a clear liberal/conservative split, with liberal Boomers saying we got closest to paradise in the 60's/earlier 70's, while conservative Boomers are more likely to exalt the 80's as the gold standard by which to judge a period. What's fascinating is that the most important issue of all, race, appears to have become more burdened with liberal dogma *after* the 70's. The GSS reveals that people were more willing to publicly oppose race mixing and the like in the 70's and early 80's. By the mid-80's, respondents began to heavily cuck on these issues and it's remained that way since. I could run an analysis to see if this is more a product of generations (with Boomers and X-ers being beaten by liberal BS into submission) or of a period's culture. .

So the Lost generation were shitlords who got a bit too carried away in their efforts to clean up the decadent culture they were born into. And G.I.s, to a fair extent weren't fools either.

Birth dates:Hitler / 1889Stalin / 1878 (a late Missionary, but close to being a Lost)Eisenhower / 1890Mussolini /1883

Churchill / 1878FDR / 1882

The oldest generations pertinent to the topic at hand were, in the West at least, not delusional about race . G.I.s were mostly happy to continue with the culture created by older generations (remember, the G.I.s followed their elders). Then came Silents and especially Boomers, who fought against measures they considered to be an affront to individual rights, not realizing that such measures were encouraged by older generations as a means to keep society from falling again into an abyss like the one America was in in the later 1800's and early 1900's.

Generations that have it too easy become narcissisticaly individualist, preoccupied with their vaunted "rights" while downplaying their responsibilities. Note also that post-G.I.s learned about fascist horrors at a very young and impressionable age. Merely being against racial integration is a slippery slope leading to another holocaust, never mind the fact that of the many Western countries for which eugenics was acceptable study, only two went off the deep end, and that was primarily due to two ambitious and belligerent leaders (Hitler and Mussolini). And the avowedly equalist Soviets shed far more innocent blood than any other white country.

We all learn about collectivist excess in the early-mid 20th century. What's much more poorly understood is that *individualist* excess generally proceeds and succeeds the collectivist type.

A perception (generally accurate) that self absorbed, reckless, and immature people are degrading the overall functioning of society, making it too atomized and decadent, makes people more receptive to reform movements and leaders who can admittedly get carried away. Germans, by the 20's, felt that Berlin cabaret shows made a mockery of traditional/wholesome German spirit. Besides, the Germans felt humiliated by post-WW1 treaties. A desire to reform a corrupt culture and get their economic self-respect back allowed them to roll the dice with Hitler in the 30's.

Reflexive hostility towards Strong Man rulers (indeed, the term itself is derogatory) is bound to happen with Silents and Boomers, who're now putting much effort into allegedly saving their precious world so that younger generations will never have to experience a Hitler (left out of their vision is that much of the world was undergoing similar processes in the early 1900's, yet many leaders to emerge in this era did as much, and perhaps more, good than harm. Also, as the GSS shows, the generations we ought to listen to are the ones who were *born into* a decadent and/or difficult era. Alas, they are mostly dead by now. Which means that we ought to be mainly listening to ourselves. Silents were born into a wholesome and easy era. As were most Boomers, though very late Boomers you could argue were born in a decadent but still pretty easy era.

The media now has like 35% approval rating. Nearly all of the legacy media is built in the image of Boomer management, and even without actual Boomers, brainwashed suck-up X-ers and Millennials who want to be the next Woodward or Bernstein are easy to find in this striver filled era.

Bratty, "the personal is the political" Boomer culture has utterly shredded the appeal of taking Boomer wannabe sages seriously.

No doubt driving the low ratings are normie Gen X-ers who have never been less interested in glib Boomer sermons. What did Boomers do to entitle them to the driver's seat? They were born in a Ferrari, floored the gas, and aimed us right at a cliff edge.

The all-Hitler, all-the-time neurosis overshadows a lot else. Before WW2, Judas was probably the most hated figure of Western culture. Still, there are some notorious villains of individualist eras. The aforementioned robber barons on an elite level, and on a more prole level, the majority of notorious criminals invariably arise from what Strauss/Howe called Awakening and Unraveling eras (e.g. Jack the Ripper in Dickensian late 1800's London, or Jeffrey Dahmer in 1980's/early 1990's Milwaukee).

Some people in older generations still haven't gotten beyond the Awakening/Unraveling mindset of better to be a king in Hell, than a servant in Heaven. That might even apply to younger people, too. I think we've got to get further into a reform era before we truly get a palpable feeling that the latest crop of decadents deserve as much opprobrium as mid-Century collectivists. And as mid-Century generations die off, why would post-Boomers be as interested in recycling archaic mindsets indefinitely?

I imagine that Strauss and Howe didn't relish telling their fellow Boomers that, well, history isn't linear, and as such, what we went through and will go through just isn't that special after all.

For the uninitiated:

High (like in 1946-early 60's): Stability and success. Conformity is seen as rewarding. Group Identity is strong.

Awakening (like in the mid 60's-early 80's): Authority is challenged, people become disenchanted with traditional mores and "going along to get along". Individual identity strengthens.

Unraveling (as in the later 80's-2000's): Cynicism and apathy set in. Materialism rises, and people start to turn their backs on each other. Individual identity strong.

Crisis (As in the 2010's or 1940's): A series of traumatic events demands urgent and judicious responses. Leadership is tested and often wracked by internal conflict. Group identity strengthens, tolerance for idiosyncratic weirdos weakens.

Just as generations are about 20 years in length, so too is each phase in a historical cycle. Generations have little to no impact on the phase they are born into, but they grow more and more influential over the next three phases.

Here on the fringes, I have to admit that I didn't expect white Boomer opposition to race-mixing to be that weak. Then again, perhaps we're getting into libertarian territory, and Boomers are the most libertarian generation. After all, the question is framed in legal terms, not moral or even really cultural terms. Perhaps a decent amount of Boomers are against it, but just can't bring themselves to say that the gubmint has any business telling consenting adults what to do even when a white women may be "consenting" to getting severe beatings.

That's a "wall" that seems to get thrown up a lot by Boomers and early Gen X-ers. "Whose right is it to tell me what to do?". That's the mindset that prevails in a unraveling era, and It seems like a lot of middle-aged people can't quite shake it.

Is it realistic to think that we bounce back towards a less individualistic zeitgeist in a majority-minority country? At some point we start feeling like our backs are up against the wall and a sense of white consciousness grows? I see a path leading from individualistic to tribalistic, but not much of one leading from individualistic to nationalistic (without the political dissolution of the US occurring).

It's already happening, with several studies (wish I could find the story that talked about this) showing that Millennials are more receptive to surveillance and military coups than older generations. Because of the whole plasticity thing, younger people are going to be more affected by the shifting winds than older people. People born since the mid 2000's are going to be even more tribalistic than Millennials, while Boomers and to some degree early Gen X-ers might never have these changes sink in.

The correlation with hardship and decadence triggering rebellious and often reactionary reform movements is pretty strong. Hitler was able to scapegoat Jews as well as foreigners who mostly weren't even in the country for screwing Germany over. Similar reaction was afoot elsewhere in the West, but we mostly didn't get as carried away as Hitler did.

I don't really foresee how we're going to avoid similar movements in the near future. Globalists and their media tentacles openly voice concern about threats to mulit-cult. neo-liberalism (note that the young Bernie wing of the left hates the fat and comfortable middle-aged to elderly people who reaped fortunes at the expense of the future). Racially speaking, even the left clearly had a divide in the primaries. Bernie's old-school targeting of elites raised the hackles of older blacks who see nothing wrong with post-1970 Leftism (in so far as they dislike it, it's only because it didn't go far enough). Younger and white voters believe that the Dems need to stop sucking up to elites and wasting too much time on boutique issues (and perhaps, over zealous ethnic pandering that's outlived it's usefulness).

The GOP's whiter base made it easier for a reform candidate to get traction. With the GOP, the main tension was between the (dwindling) number of highly educated GOP voters and lower class people. No racial issues to muck things up.The Dems, on the other hand, got stuck with racial and generational tension, since blacks are allowed to have disproportionate clout and older voters vote more reliably and have Superdelegate surrogates. Middle-aged/elderly blacks got what they wanted, young people and whites got the finger.

I've heard some middle-aged blacks at work grumble about Trump (being jovial blacks, they aren't as annoying as whiny professional leftists and white SJWs). Ya gotta wonder if they have any awareness that they are the ones chaining the Dems to musty ideology and embarrassing pandering.

Bernie leftism is stealth ally of ours. Taking even the most tentative steps to reining in super elite rapacity will diminish individual glory seeking and to some extent, overall opportunity. Older generations love to fantasize about adventure, experimentation, and fortune. Tightening the leash on super rich people and strivers will take some of the glamor out of living large. With less focus on oneself, people will start to think more about their families and local communities. Not as much dreamin' about making it big in Silicon valley, being a part of the elite who transcend their national origin.

but not much of one leading from individualistic to nationalistic (without the political dissolution of the US occurring).

There already is a defacto balkanization of America that's happened. Super rich people live among their own; the Indians have their reservations; blacks make up a huge percent of East of the Rockies urban populations and dominate quite a few sub-Appalachian areas of the South. Many urban strivers don't even fully identify as American anymore; surrounded by waves of immigrants, you can't really blame them.

When the Supreme court hands down rulings that are a blow to liberal strivers, we'll have to say how the fine folks of Denver, Frisco, Seattle, Minneapolis, et al react. Back East, even in Minnesota the GOP is gaining so much strength out state that it ought to be enough to tamp down the hives. Out West, due to history and geography, there just aren't enough people in small towns to counteract the legions of urban strivers. California is really turning into a nut house, what with all the diversity and ever shrinking white population.

Sean Trende did an analysis of living patterns and voting patterns in the '16 election. Trump did very well in low to moderately populated classic small towns. Problem is, there aren't that many of them in the states that are West of the Plains. California is probably the biggest exception to this, but Cali drove out many poor to middle class whites over the last 30 years while taking on huge waves of immigrants. Whereas most smaller towns Back East still have plenty of modest white folk who voted heavily for Trump. Middle California embraced Reagan in the 70's and 80's, but Middle California doesn't really exist anymore.

"In recent years, California has been turning into what amounts to a one-party state. Between 2008 and 2016, the number of Californian's who registered as Democrats climbed by 1.1 million, while the number of registered Republicans dropped by almost 400,000.

What's more, many Republicans in the state had nobody to vote for in November.

There were two Democrats — and zero Republicans — running to replace Sen. Barbara Boxer. There were no Republicans on the ballot for House seats in nine of California's congressional districts.

At the state level, six districts had no Republicans running for the state senate, and 16 districts had no Republicans running for state assembly seats.

Plus, since Republicans knew Clinton was going to win the state — and its entire 55 electoral votes — casting a ballot for Trump was virtually meaningless, since no matter what her margin of victory, Clinton was getting all 55 votes.

Is it any wonder then, that Trump got 11% fewer California votes than John McCain did in 2008? (Clinton got 6% more votes than Obama did eight years ago, but the number of registered Democrats in the state climbed by 13% over those years.)"

What will be left of whites in much of California? When crime rises in the 2020's (as it must), what sane white person will want to live in a rabidly leftist state that's attracted so garbage? Are we talking about a handful of guarded elite areas, with virtually no middle class whites able to afford a decent house, neighborhood, or school? At what point will wealthy whites finally balk at paying gobs of their income to subsidize brown and yellow hordes? Who will only ungratefully demand more gibs which in turn attracts even more parasites.